Add to library

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds valuable side-effect information beyond the annotations: the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted with nuvio_undo. This is meaningful context because the annotations only provide generic hints and do not mention undo behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped to a profile's library. The second sentence adds an important revert note without unnecessary detail. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the operation and its key undo behavior, and the schema supplies required fields and types. However, without parameter descriptions or an output schema, an agent must infer the meaning of content_id/content_type and cannot anticipate the response shape. This is a noticeable gap for a nested-object write tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. It does not explain what makes a valid item, how content_id/content_type identify the item, or what profile_id refers to. The property names in the schema are suggestive, but the description itself fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Add or update an item in a profile's library.' It clearly separates this mutation tool from sibling read/removal tools like nuvio_get_library and nuvio_remove_from_library. There is no tautology or ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: to add or update an item in a profile's library. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear and no misleading guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.